Glenn Saberton <gsaber...@foomagic.org> writes:
> Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> Glenn Saberton <gsaber...@foomagic.org> writes:
>>
>>> +static int start_wpa_daemon(struct debconfclient *client)
>>> +{
>>> + wpa_supplicant_pid = fork();
>>> +
>>> + if (wpa_supplicant_pid == 0) {
>>> + fclose(client->out);
>>> + if (execlp("wpa_supplicant", "wpa_supplicant", "-i", interface,
>>> "-C",
>>> + WPASUPP_CTRL, "-P", WPAPID, "-B", NULL) == -1) {
>>> + di_error("could not exec wpasupplicant: %s", strerror(errno));
>>> + return 1;
>>> + }
>>> + else
>>> + return 0;
>>> + }
>>> + else {
>>> + waitpid(wpa_supplicant_pid, NULL, 0);
>>> + return 0;
>>> + }
>>> +}
>>
>> this looks fishy. Are you sure you want to return if the child has
>> failed to exec?
>>
> Can you explain what you mean by looks fishy? Suggestions and
> improvements are more than welcome, and I still have a few things I want
> to do yet myself. I'm a bit of a C novice, so I am more than likely to
> have done a few things the less than perfect way, but I'm not sure what
> you mean by the above comment. As is, if the exec fails, then we return
> back, which could really do with an error template as well. I think I
> still need to do a bit more work on the error handling side of things.
fork() clones the current process. The exec then tries to replace the
"child" process with a new one, in this case wpasupplicant. If
wpasupplicant can be executed and the exec call succeeds, it never
returns.
However if exec fails, you generally don't want to continue execution,
but exit with an error code.
If done like you did here, you'll have 2 netcfg processes in the
system. From the first look, it doesn't look that this is intended.
--
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
